The school is going to hold a debate tournament with the topic of how to debate the source of waste

This is how the first debate theory is usually written.

First of all, let's state how your team understands the words waste, abundance, and origin, and it is enough to explain it according to the dictionary at the junior high school level, but there must be this standard as the premise of your discussion.

Then make your arguments, e.g. 1 Because the poor can't waste, the waste comes from the rich class. Then give some examples or facts to support it, and this shallow view can be directly supported by data.

2. Wealthy people are prone to show off mentality, which leads to wasteful behavior. Let's take some more examples, such as Shi Chong of the Western Jin Dynasty and the like.

3. In the case of affluence, there may be unintentional waste, such as waste due to investment or judgment errors, because he has a lot of money, so he will waste more due to mistakes.

Then calculate the time and write as many words as you can read.

Issued by the defense theory in general.

At this point, first clarify how your team understands the origin of the three words waste, affluence, and junior level, according to the dictionary to explain it, but there must be a standard discussion as a premise.

Then make your arguments such as: 1, because the poor can't waste, so waste the wealthy class. Some examples or facts are then given in shallow points to support the support of the data like.

2 Wealthy people tend to show off their mentality to make waste behavior. To give some examples, such as the statue of Xi Jin falling from grace.

3 cases of affluence, may be unintentional waste, waste, such as investment or miscalculation, his money itself, such a mistake will also be even more wasteful.

Count, then you can read the words and write the number of words.

Why is it wasted? The main substance is too abundant to be used up. Material abundance is definitely affluence. So the source of waste is affluence.

Of course I did, so why not? Want to starve to death? A person's dignity is important, but a momentary hard mouth or something else can indeed show backbone, but it often cuts off one's own back road, and there is no day to turn over.

But in the end, this person's dignity turned into arrogance, and Qian Ao had already apologized to him.

Born in "Sorrow and Death in Peace".

Are you positive or negative? Whether it is positive or negative, we must grasp one point, that is, the argument and argument should be strongly expressed, learning is useful or useless. And to be witty against the opposing side's point of view, the debate competition is supposed to show a person's ability to react and cope, right?

It is actually not difficult to do it yourself and have enough food and clothing, and you must have your own thoughts to convince others.

The author of the question is brain-dead, and uses moral determination as a debate topic.

Expand the extension of human affection, and set the consumption for friendship, family affection, and teacher-student affection as human affection.

For example, repairing class doors and windows, bringing drinks to classmates, paying miscellaneous fees for students in difficulty, giving teachers gifts on Teacher's Day, and giving small gifts to elders cannot be avoided.

If the other party says that this is not good, you can scold the other party "You are not filial" (of course not, this is a personal attack).

Secondary school students always have to come into contact with society, and it is inevitable that they will consume favors.

It can be said that favor consumption is the expression of friendship.

Middle school is still too young, it's still a little simple, at least wait until college.

1. Relieve sorrow with wine, can't face up to contradictions, and don't have the courage and determination to solve problems. Ask where the sorrow comes from, and explain it even more.

Everything is always in the air. Why don't you take it to heart. If you call to do and show your eyebrows, you are the one who has attained it, and you are afraid of it.

This is the case. I don't know what to say, He Zengdao, happy travel is like fame and fortune. The Tao is wrong, and the Tao is wrong.

Here there is no self and you. Even called to do, outside of the situation. If you have to wait until you are drunk before you can explain, ask how you can get drunk without alcohol.

2. Afraid of his wife to the extreme: I am afraid when my wife is reasonable, and I am afraid when I am unreasonable, so there is an opera called "Hedong Lion's Roar". Explain that you can't tell right from wrong.

3. Fantasy paradise, do not ask about the world, and avoid contradictions. Contradictions are objective, and it is impossible for people living in society to avoid social contradictions, nor can they be like Tao Qian's description, "I don't know whether there is Qin, regardless of Wei and Jin". This is where we do not think it is desirable.

The Biography of Fang Shanzi describes that he lived in a thatched hut and ate vegetarian food, which can be seen from not interacting with all walks of life.

4. Stubborn and unable to keep pace with the times. He gave up riding on a chariot and horseback, destroyed the clothes and hats of scholars, and walked to and fro in the mountains, and no one knew him. When the people saw that the hat he was wearing was square and very high, they said, "

Isn't this what the ancient musicians wore about the Fang Mountain Crown? Therefore, he was called "Fang Shanzi".

5. Alcoholism is like life, spending money is like earth, so as to be a ranger. It has the meaning of Don Quixote, indicating that his people's living habits are poor and cannot be consumed scientifically. Not advisable.

Reading thousands of books and traveling thousands of miles, not to use books to prove the road, but to use the road to prove the book, the person who "often hangs the horns of the "Book of Han" has done it!

First of all, I would like to say hello to everyone, and then you can introduce the meaning of being forgiving and forgiving. Use historical events, modern events, in the presentation of your ideas.

All right. Now there's free debate.

You don't even have a 10 and expect someone to tell you?

I don't think anyone will be serious about it unless they come up with some higher rewards.

The New Dialectics of Nature can provide you with the material. Click on "New Dialectics of Nature". 1. Consciousness is the form of movement of an electromagnetic field.

Electromagnetic fields are the forms of existence of electric and magnetic fields. The motion of the electromagnetic field is the manifestation and realization of photoelectric thermal wave magnetism. 2. Consciousness is the whole content of the movement of life, and without consciousness there is no existence of life.

3. The content of consciousness is very profound and universal: choice and adaptation, mutation and heredity, recognition and memory, magnetic resonance imaging, magnetic resonance recording, transliteration, magnetic resonance pronunciation, language and writing, thinking, magnetic resonance, bioelectromagnetic waves, and so on. 4. There is a magnetic field connection between the structure and level of matter, and there is a conductive phenomenon of charged particles between atoms and atoms, so matter is the form of electromagnetic field motion.

Organize some of your own daily content, and the victory is yours.

。。Idealism holds that consciousness determines material things. It is the generation of consciousness that promotes the development of matter.

And consciousness determines the direction of human development. The objective world outside consciousness emphasizes that the "spiritual ontology" as the original of the world is endogenous to the objective world itself, and this "spiritual ontology" invariably carries the meaning of "the law of things", which makes objective idealism often unconsciously move towards nature and objectivity. At the same time, since "objectivity" is the core of the ideological system of objective idealism, it inevitably forms a rich dialectical thought, and these rational ideological elements are by no means accidental, but should be regarded as the "objectivity" of objective idealism.

That's not easy, if everyone is not conscious, there would be no problem, and there would be no debate. The biggest difference between human beings and plants and trees is that human beings have thoughts, but they are not conscious, where do they come from? I really don't understand, what can we get from arguing about this kind of question?

From a logical point of view, not the sequential causality of time, we can look at the philosophies of Parmenides, Plato and Kant.